That makes perfect sense - if you ignore the primacy of family. If the child is born and abandoned within our borders, he or she is clearly deserving protection and citizenship. If we are speaking of an intact family with allegiance elsewhere, then no.

If we want to ignore the primacy of family (the founders didn't), then take the baby, grant citizenship, deport the trespassing parents, and see how many more come for that loophole.

Second guessing wrongly decided cases is what we do here on the forum, I hope, and overturning them is what they are supposed to do on the Court.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

A baby born to a foreign family touring the U.S. on vacation does not reside here. You would have to read only part of that sentence above to conclude a baby of a foreign family becomes a citizen.

If the language of the amendment and its intent are not one and the same we should be actively going through the amendment process to clarify and get it right.

"If we want to ignore the primacy of family (the founders didn't), then take the baby, grant citizenship, deport the trespassing parents, and see how many more come for that loophole."

And that is it in a nutshell. Those coming illegally know quite well what a spectacle this would make. And that is the meaning of "anchor" baby.

Hillary has said that breaking up families and mass deportion would not, and cannot happen. We all KNOW she would not say this if the groups we are talking were predominantly Republican voters.

While possible I don't think the reverse would (at least in theory) be true; that is that conservatives would sell out America simply for more votes. Perhaps, Republicans would sell us out too, but I really don't think they would do so in such obnoxious, cynical, hypocritical, and deceitful fashion.

It also seems quite clear to me we won't have to round everyone up and handcuff them and send them home on military trains watching MSLSD and CNN showing hoards of crying screaming illegals having their families broken up for the world to see and play the international "emotional/sympathy card".

The reports that 100 K illegals have already left Arizona because they "don't feel welcome" (laughing out loud at that one) absolutely proves that we need cut off the job loophole, the ID loophole, the free benefits and the rest will take care of itself.

If we could stop this ridiculous abuse of the born here automatic citizen here than we have the royal flush and the problem is mostly fixed - albeit ID fraud etc, visa fraud, application fraud etc.

I would think, another way to get around this born here citizen no questions asked loophole is national security and the obligation of the Feds to protect our borders.

Any legal experts here have any thoughts on that? JDN suggests this is to some extent a long recognized exception when speaking of "enemy" combatants.

As for Asians who come here just to give birth so their kids can be citizens (dual); I wonder how much this goes on?

I bet it is common. The Chinese meld into China towns and work in the backs of Chinese restaurants. Those from many countries are doing the same thing. 50K Irish in NYC. Someone is giving them work.

Also getting relatives onto Medicare, social security. It is rampant. And our government does nothing.IMO we need not sit back and throw up our hands and say as JDN states, "It is futile to challenge it".

We just need polticians with courage. I am convinced now that the majority of Americans would be behind them. Marc Levin recently pointed out a poll that noted the Dem/Rep voting stats for Latinos has, at least so far not changed since the Az law suggesting those Latinos who believe in Republican values have not changed their minds because of it. I am encouraged we must proceed and get this problem addressed.

I am not interested in hurting anyone, Latino or otherwise but I am not interested in being stupid and giving the my country away.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

A baby born to a foreign family touring the U.S. on vacation does not reside here. You would have to read only part of that sentence above to conclude a baby of a foreign family becomes a citizen.

If the language of the amendment and its intent are not one and the same we should be actively going through the amendment process to clarify and get it right.

DougMacG... I am sorry to be "targeting" you, but the above statement isn't true. The 14th amendment was written that way in an effort to directly address the Dred Scott opinion. It was meant to give citizenship rights at both the national and state level, and not to allow the states to strip citizens of their rights. Read the rest of section 1 of the amendment. However, that can also be seen as good news for conservatives (see, for example, the right to bear arms).

Bigdog wrote: "DougMacG... I am sorry to be "targeting" you, but the above statement isn't true."

Big dog, Please have at it. No hurt feelings, at least so far. You should see how the others rip me, lol. I write with the hope that any mistakes or falsehoods will be corrected and my opinions are open to discovery of more info or learning of other views. As Crafty says, 'the adventure continues'.

It seemed to me in casual reading that the same sentenced granting citizenship also refers to the person residing here - in one of the states.

In my state, a mother or couple can drop off an unwanted newborn with no questions asked. If I were interpreting the 14th amendment, I would see that as the situation where the newborn 'foreigner' gains automatic citizenship. In the case Won Kim Ark, the newborn was subject to his intact family who were subject to a foreign emperor, and none of them resided here - in any of the states.

Bigdog: "The 14th amendment was written that way in an effort to directly address the Dred Scott opinion. It was meant to give citizenship rights at both the national and state level, and not to allow the states to strip citizens of their rights. Read the rest of section 1 of the amendment."

(The rest of section 1 of the amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")

I agree with you on this part. But the former slave and offspring were residing here, the Chinese tourist and his newborn were not.

It is not practical or logical to me for an intact family to have divided national allegiances. I suppose as they watch the Olympic medal ceremonies, different family members would stand, put their hand over their heart and sing with conviction to different national anthems.

If the Court still believes that visitors and trespassers create citizenship rights through anchor babies and this language supports that (I still don't see it), then my other point was that the amendment process could and should be used to end that practice.

If your interpretation of the constitution was correct, which it isn't, then there would not have been a need for the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 .

Well, golly, there would be no need for any kind of Voting Rights Act either... but it isn't my interpretation that is faulty, it is the ability or willingness of the states to follow the law. I would think that any conservative would like my interpretation. It is the heart of the 2nd Amendment debate going on. If you are right, then states CAN prohibit the right to bare arms!

DougMacG... thank you! I will try not to wail on you. I think your interpretation is erroneous, and here is why: by your account, the citizenship rights are dependent on residency. However, a citizen doesn't lose his or her citizenship rights if they don't live in the US. If I reside in France, or Indonesia, or... I retain my rights as a US citizen. I doesn't depend on state(side) residence.

You meant to "bear arms" as in to carry or possess arms and not to wear tank tops I'm assuming.

You interpretation appears to be rooted in the ACLU leftist paradigm, which is essentially "Quote the constitution whenever it can be misused in such a manner as to harm America."

If citizens rights were given to all born on our soil, per U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, then why would a member of an Indian tribe born within the national boundaries after that date need the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924?

Your attempt to include the 2nd amendment is invalid, as to read the writings of the founding fathers made it clear that the possession of weapons by free men was the intent of that amendment. I challenge you to show me where it was the intent of the founders to reward the violation of American law with citizenship for the children of the criminal invaders.

While I own a few guns and support the right to "bear arms" I admit I prefer beautiful women with "bare arms".

However, if I recollect GM knows Indian rights and their history better than any of us.Therefore, GM also knows it's complicated; Indian Land is Sovereign Land and therefore (it's complicated)not subject to US Laws. I have gone round and round with a few local reservations regarding subpoenas and other legal issues. There is a long history and legal precedents pertaining to this matter. Supposedly,America did Indians a "favor" by granting them citizenship in 1924, in essence dual citizenship since they remain a "citizen" of their tribe. But I'm not sure America has done too many "favors" for the American Indian throughout history.

The best way to describe the status of Federally Recognized Tribes is they are sovereign nations as far as states are concerned (although to a lesser degree in some states, such as California) but not where the federal government/federal law is concerned. For example, a Nevada State Trooper, as a peace officer empowered by the state of Nevada could enforce all the laws of Nevada on a non-indian driving on a roadway within the boundaries of Indian Tribal land, if the Trooper were to conduct a traffic stop on members of that tribe, or any Federally Recognized Tribe he/she could lawfully detain them until Tribal or federal law enforcement officers arrived on scene. The Indian person/s could only be prosecuted in tribal and/or federal court for any crimes that under other circumstances would fall under state jurisdiction. Tribal sovereignty is most just that from states, but not from the feds.

It is complicated, however a Arizona trooper one inch over the Mexican border has NO authority, just as a Mexican law enforcement officer has no jurisdiction one inch over the US border, given that Mexico asserts it's status as a sovereign nation, and to a degree, we still do as well.

You meant to "bear arms" as in to carry or possess arms and not to wear tank tops I'm assuming.

You interpretation appears to be rooted in the ACLU leftist paradigm, which is essentially "Quote the constitution whenever it can be misused in such a manner as to harm America."

If citizens rights were given to all born on our soil, per U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, then why would a member of an Indian tribe born within the national boundaries after that date need the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924?

Your attempt to include the 2nd amendment is invalid, as to read the writings of the founding fathers made it clear that the possession of weapons by free men was the intent of that amendment. I challenge you to show me where it was the intent of the founders to reward the violation of American law with citizenship for the children of the criminal invaders.

Your ability to interpret is uncanny. I see here that you clearly like to keep discussion civil. I appreciate that you think quoting the Constitution is treasonous.

You have a simple and unsophisticated view of the Supreme Court's ability to just *poof* make a policy. Let's see if there are some reasons why there would need to be a piece of legislation following a Supreme Court decision.

1. The Framers intended the Supreme Court to comparatively, to Congress and the President, weak. In the words of Alexander Hamiliton (a Framer, as you know doubt are aware), the Supreme Court lacks the "purse" of Congress and the "sword" of the president. In other words, the Supreme Court doesn't have the ability to enforce its decisions.

2. In addition to the citizenship issue that you raise... A. Despite the High Bench's decision in INS v. Chadha that "legislative vetoes" violate the presentment clause of Article I (dammit, another Constitution reference), legislative vetoes have not ceased. B. There was a Supreme Court case that included the information that an island (either Long or Ellis, IIRC) was not an island. That did not, of course, make that true. My apologies for not having the citation. C. The Brown vs. Bd. of Education decisions were supposed to integrate schools. They didn't. It took an act of Congress a decade later to move in a forceful way to formally end segregated education. (Notice the similarity with the case and action you discuss). D. The 14th Amendment gives Congress, not the Supreme Court, the power to enforce it. (See section 5). E. Speaking of original intent, and you were, you are aware that the Bill of Rights was intended to limit only the national government, right? It was the 14th amendment that was intended to limit states. F. "I challenge you to show me where it was the intent of the founders to reward the violation of American law with citizenship for the children of the criminal invaders." I don't have to. The founders, in this instance, have nothing to do with the question at hand. Again, it was the 14th amendment that gave that right.

Recently I spoke to someone who has a lot of contact with big health insurance payers here in NJ. He states the main reason health insurance is so high is the facility costs such as hospitals. They have to recoup there losses in providing care to the uninsured. They are only able to recoup half their costs. Half of those costs are illegals.So here in NJ the cost of insurance is in part so high because we are paying for the care of illegals.

No. It was the (wrongly decided IMO) court case cited that extended that to people passing through, ignoring that the newborn is subject to his intact family and the family is subject to a foreign emperor. The 14th specifically mentions residing in one of our states: "...of the State wherein they reside." We take the 14th at its word without intent for a desired result and then ignore the words that don't fit where we were taking it.

"by your account, the citizenship rights are dependent on residency. However, a citizen doesn't lose his or her citizenship rights if they don't live in the US. If I reside in France, or Indonesia, or... I retain my rights as a US citizen."

That logic assumes the criteria to gain citizenship and the criteria to lose citizenship are one and the same. Not so.

A citizenship test can require memorizing the Pledge of Allegiance yet I know plenty of leftists who have long ago forgotten that liberty comes before justice.

"That logic assumes the criteria to gain citizenship and the criteria to lose citizenship are one and the same. Not so."

Not at all. You are the one who made the erroneous claim that for one to be a citizen of the US, there was an implication of residency. There isn't. Oh, and natural born citizens don't need to take the citizenship test. They are just granted the rights. That's why a bunch of idiot on the left, right and middle can make claims about the Constitution without ever having read it. And, for the record, I am a firm believer in liberty.

I must confess that I don't understand the controversy here. The 14th Amendment says "All persons born". Where does the confusion come from???

Not sure confusion is the right term. Rather perverse incentives are noted and then some make the leap that there must be a sensible way to mitigate them. Guess the idealists among us think there should be sensible solutions to easily identifiable problems. Alas I'm too cynical to be numbered among them.

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-AmericansThe 14th AmendmentBy P.A. MadisonFormer Research Fellow in Constitutional StudiesFebruary 1, 2005

We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.

We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]

Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...

Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.

It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that fourteenth amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.

Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own home grown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."

Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."

The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the constitution.

A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the citizenship clause as simply "declaratory" of what they regarded "as the law of the land already." This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard's express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States," and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can be.

James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:

When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[7]

What does it all mean?

In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about Autum Ashante, the precocious 7-year-old black nationalist poet, who said white people are "devils and they should be gone." If this daughter of a Nation of Islam activist father had instead been an Aryan supremacist child of a Klan activist, she'd still be all over the network news and pages of pop culture magazines (as a pair of white nationalist teen pop singers, Lamb and Lynx Gaede, have been since last fall). But with rare exceptions, nobody wanted to touch Autum's spoon-fed hatred with a 10-foot-pole. That would be, you know, "intolerant." We have to "respect diversity."

Well, this weekend, militant racism from another protected minority group was on full display. But you wouldn't know it from press accounts that whitewashed or buried the protesters' virulent anti-American hatred.

An estimated 500,000 to 2 million people, untold numbers of them here illegally, took to the streets of Los Angeles to protest strict immigration enforcement and demand blanket amnesty for border violators, visa overstayers, deportation fugitives, immigration document fraud artists, and other lawbreakers. Mexican flags and signs advocating ethnic separatism and supremacy filled the landscape. Demonstrators gleefully defaced posters of President Bush and urged supporters to "Stop the Nazis!" Los Angeles talk show host Tammy Bruce reported that protesters burned American flags and waved placards of the North American continent with America crossed out.

Bet you didn't see that on television.

One of the largest, boldest banners visible from aerial shots of the rally read: "THIS IS STOLEN LAND." Others blared: "CHICANO POWER" and "BROWN IS BEAUTIFUL." (Can you imagine the uproar if someone had come to the rally holding up a sign reading "WHITE IS BEAUTIFUL?") Thugs with masked faces flashed gang signs on the steps of L.A.'s City Hall. Students walked out of classrooms all across southern California chanting, "Latinos, stand up!" Young people raised their fists in defiance, clothed in t-shirts bearing radical leftist guerilla Che Guevera's face and Aztlan emblems.

Aztlan is a long-held notion among Mexico's intellectual elite and political class, which asserts that the American southwest rightly belongs to Mexico. Advocates believe the reclamation (or reconquista) of Aztlan will occur through sheer demographic force. If the rallies across the country are any indication, reconquista is already complete.

Lest you think these ideas are moldy-oldy 1960s' leftovers that no one subscribes to today, listen to Sandra Molina, 16, a junior from L.A.'s Downtown Magnet High School, who complained to the supportive Los Angeles Times: "This is unjust. This land used to belong to us and now they're trying to kick us out."

Nor are these sovereignty-obliterating grievances confined to the wacky West Coast. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, marchers carried signs that read: "If you think I'm 'illegal' because I'm a Mexican[,] learn the true history because I'm in my HOMELAND."

Open-borders sympathizers in the press strained to look the other way. As Slate writer Mickey Kaus, who attended the L.A. demonstration, noted, the Los Angeles Times buried any mention of the presence of Mexican flags in its initial "propagandistic" report—and then eliminated any reference to them at all. Cracks Kaus: "I used to write this sort of press-releasey 'news' account when my college paper assigned me to "cover" anti-war demonstrations that I'd helped organize!�The Times' effort is filled with representative quotes from participants, without a note of dissent."

Apologists are quick to argue that Latino supremacists are just a small fringe faction of the pro-illegal immigration movement (never mind that their ranks include former and current Hispanic politicians from L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to former California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cruz Bustamante).

But you'll never hear or read such forgiving caveats in the mainstream press's hostile coverage of the pro-immigration enforcement members of the Minutemen Project—who are universally smeared as racists. For what? For peacefully demanding that our government enforce its laws and secure its borders.

Yes, borders. Last time I checked a map of North America, they still do exist.

Unless we give in and let the bullies and their appeasers whitewash those out of existence, too.

I had a thought on Saturday when I was standing in the middle of a screaming, bottle-throwing group countering the SOS (Save Our State) protesters outside Maywood City Hall, just south of downtown L.A., staring down cops in riot gear: If my career continues to go well my beloved protest-crashing days may be numbered (sniff), as some of these ornery folks recognizing me could result in some trying to beat the tar out of me. After I returned from the immigration protest, a co-worker expressed the same sentiment. But for now, I’m cheered by the thought that ignorant protesters (”Who’s Tancredo?” one pro-immigration demonstrator asked about a “Tancredo for president” sign held by SOS members) are just ignorant enough.

Here’s the scene: SOS is peeved about Maywood’s flouting of federal immigration law, claiming they are a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants and even disbanding their police department’s traffic unit so that illegals without driver’s licenses won’t be fearful of getting their cars towed. Several dozen show up to protest this policy. Lefty groups spread the word and a few hundred show up to counterprotest. I hung out with the counterprotesters, who actually had an unfair advantage in the police barricade setup as they were right next to a mariscos joint.

Not to spoil my upcoming column on this protest, but let’s just say it was an afternoon chock full of racism, reconquista (like the “Stolen Continent” sign featuring two continents? props to the LAUSD, eh?) and riot cops. And after the local post office took down the American flag at closing time, pro-immigration demonstrators promptly ran the Mexican flag up the flagpole. Eventually, police officers surrounded the flagpole and tried to get the Mexican flag down, but the cords got twisted and they could only lower it to half-staff.

The nation's television screens many days recently have been filled with scenes of huge crowds carrying the colorful green and red flag of Mexico viewers could well have thought it was a national holiday in Mexico City.

It was instead, downtown Los Angeles, Calif., although the scene was recreated in numerous other cities around the country with substantial Mexican populations. Hordes of Mexican expatriates, many here illegally, were protesting the very U.S. immigration laws they were violating with impunity. They found it offensive and a violation of their rights that the U.S. dared to have immigration laws to begin with.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa mounted the podium, but any hopes that he would quiet the crowds and defend the law were soon dashed. Villaraigosa, himself, has spent a lifetime opposing U.S. immigration law.

For law-abiding Americans without knowledge of the dark side of our current illegal immigration crisis, all this is unfathomable. For those who know the truth about the "La Raza" movement, these demonstrations were a prophecy fulfilled.

It is past time for all Americans to know what is at the root of this outrageous behavior, and the extent to which the nation is at risk because of "La Raza" -- The Race.

There are many immigrant groups joined in the overall "La Raza" movement. The most prominent and mainstream organization is the National Council de La Raza -- the Council of "The Race".

To most of the mainstream media, most members of Congress, and even many of their own members, the National Council of La Raza is no more than a Hispanic Rotary Club.

But the National Council of La Raza succeeded in raking in over $15.2 million in federal grants last year alone, of which $7.9 million was in U.S. Department of Education grants for Charter Schools, and undisclosed amounts were for get-out-the-vote efforts supporting La Raza political positions.

The Council of La Raza succeeded in having itself added to congressional hearings by Republican House and Senate leaders. And an anonymous senator even gave the Council of La Raza an extra $4 million in earmarked taxpayer money, supposedly for "housing reform," while La Raza continues to lobby the Senate for virtual open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens.

The Mexican flag flew over a crowd of pro-amnesty marchers in New York. Marches like this across the U.S. have been supported by the “La Raza” movement. (Reuters/Seth Wenig)

Radical 'Reconquista' Agenda

Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions.

Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.

One of America's greatest strengths has always been taking in immigrants from cultures around the world, and assimilating them into our country as Americans. By being citizens of the U.S. we are Americans first, and only, in our national loyalties.

This is totally opposed by MEChA for the hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, to whom they say:

"Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot...Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny." (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)

MEChA isn't at all shy about their goals, or their views of other races. Their founding principles are contained in these words in "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan" (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan):

"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. ... Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. ... We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada."

That closing two-sentence motto is chilling to everyone who values equal rights for all. It says: "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing."

If these morally sickening MEChA quotes were coming from some fringe website, Americans could at least console themselves that it was just a small group of nuts behind it. Nearly every racial and ethnic group has some shady characters and positions in its past and some unbalanced individuals today claiming racial superiority and demanding separatism. But this is coming straight from the official MEChA sites at Georgetown University, the University of Texas, UCLA, University of Michigan, University of Colorado, University of Oregon, and many other colleges and universities around the country.

MEChA was in fact reported to be one of the main organizers of those street demonstrations we witnessed over the past weeks. That helps explain why those hordes of illegal immigrants weren't asking for amnesty -- they were demanding an end to U.S. law, period. Unlike past waves of immigrants who sought to become responsible members of American society, these protesters reject American society altogether, because they have been taught that America rightfully belongs to them.

MEChA and the La Raza movement teach that Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as "Aztlan" -- a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America. As such, it belongs to the followers of MEChA. These are all areas America should surrender to "La Raza" once enough immigrants, legal or illegal, enter to claim a majority, as in Los Angeles. The current borders of the United States will simply be extinguished.

This plan is what is referred to as the "Reconquista" or reconquest, of the Western U.S.

But it won't end with territorial occupation and secession. The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of "Aztlan."

As Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge's MEChA chapter has been quoted as saying: "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled -- opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power."

MEChA Plants

Members of these radical, anti-American, racist organizations are frequently smoothly polished into public respectability by the National Council of La Raza.

Former MEChA members include Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was officially endorsed by La Raza for mayor and was awarded La Raza's Graciela Olivarez Award. Now we know why he refuses to condemn a sea of foreign flags in his city. California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is also a former MEChA member. He delivered the keynote address at La Raza's 2002 Annual Convention.

The National Council of La Raza and its allies in public office make no repudiation of the radical MEChA and its positions. In fact, as recently as 2003, La Raza was actively funding MEChA, according to federal tax records.

Imagine Robert Byrd's refusing to disavow the views of the KKK, or if Strom Thurmond had failed to admit segregation was wrong. Imagine Heritage or Brookings Foundation making grants to the American Nazi Party.

Is the National Council of La Raza itself a racist organization? Regardless of the organization's suspect ties, the majority of its members are not. When one examines all the organization's activities, they are commendable non-profit projects, such as education and housing programs.

But even these defensible efforts raise the question of whether education and housing programs funded with federal tax dollars should be used in programs specifically targeted to benefit just one ethnic group.

La Raza defenders usually respond by calling anyone making these allegations "a racist" for having called attention to La Raza's racist links. All the groups and public officials with ties to the La Raza movement can take a big step towards disproving these allegations by simply following the examples of Senators Byrd and Thurmond and repenting of their past ways.

If they are unwilling to admit past misdeeds, they can at least state -- unequivocally -- that they officially oppose the racist and anti-American positions of MEChA, and any other groups that espouse similar views.

Through public appearances, written statements, and on their respective websites, La Raza groups and allies must:

2. Acknowledge the right of all Americans to live wherever they choose in the U.S. without segregation.

3. Commit to sponsorship of nationwide educational programs to combat racism and anti-Semitism in the Hispanic community.

4. Denounce and sever all ties with MEChA and any other organizations with which they have ever been associated which held to the racist doctrines held by MEChA.

5. Acknowledge the internationally recognized borders of the U.S., the right of the citizens of the U.S. to determine immigration policy through the democratic process, and the right of the U.S. to undertake any and all necessary steps to effectively enforce immigration law and defend its border against unauthorized entry.

6. Repudiate all claims that current American territory rightfully belongs to Mexico.

If the National Council of La Raza, other La Raza groups, and local and national political leaders with past ties and associations with the radical elements of the La Raza movement can publicly issue such a statement and live by every one of these principles, they should be welcomed into the American public policy arena, with past sins -- real or imaginary -- forgiven.

If they cannot publicly and fully support these principles, Congress needs to take appropriate steps and immediately bar any group refusing to comply from receiving any future federal funds. Both the House and Senate should strike these groups from testifying before any committees, and the White House should sever all ties. Both political parties should disengage from any further contact with these groups and individuals.

There are plenty of decent, patriotic Hispanic organizations and elected officials to provide Congress with necessary feedback on specific issues confronting Americans of Latino heritage. Any group or individual who can agree with the simple six points should be welcomed into that fold.

If not, the American people will know there's a wolf in their midst, and take the necessary precautions to defend our Republic against an enemy.

Related Special Topic PageTracking Mexico’s Drug CartelsLast week we discussed the impact that crime, and specifically kidnapping, has been having on Mexican citizens and foreigners visiting or living in Mexico. We pointed out that there is almost no area of Mexico immune from the crime and violence. As if on cue, on the night of Feb. 21 a group of heavily armed men threw two grenades at a police building in Zihuatanejo, Guerrero state, wounding at least five people. Zihuatanejo is a normally quiet beach resort just north of Acapulco; the attack has caused the town’s entire police force to go on strike. (Police strikes, or threats of strikes, are not uncommon in Mexico.)

Mexican police have regularly been targeted by drug cartels, with police officials even having been forced to seek safety in the United States, but such incidents have occurred most frequently in areas of high cartel activity like Veracruz state or Palomas. The Zihuatanejo incident is proof of the pervasiveness of violence in Mexico, and demonstrates the impact that such violence quickly can have on an area generally considered safe.

Significantly, the impact of violent Mexican criminals stretches far beyond Mexico itself. In recent weeks, Mexican criminals have been involved in killings in Argentina, Peru and Guatemala, and Mexican criminals have been arrested as far away as Italy and Spain. Their impact — and the extreme violence they embrace — is therefore not limited to Mexico or even just to Latin America. For some years now, STRATFOR has discussed the threat that Mexican cartel violence could spread to the United States, and we have chronicled the spread of such violence to the U.S.-Mexican border and beyond.

Traditionally, Mexican drug-trafficking organizations had focused largely on the transfer of narcotics through Mexico. Once the South American cartels encountered serious problems bringing narcotics directly into the United States, they began to focus more on transporting the narcotics to Mexico. From that point, the Mexican cartels transported them north and then handed them off to U.S. street gangs and other organizations, which handled much of the narcotics distribution inside the United States. In recent years, however, these Mexican groups have grown in power and have begun to take greater control of the entire narcotics-trafficking supply chain.

With greater control comes greater profitability as the percentages demanded by middlemen are cut out. The Mexican cartels have worked to have a greater presence in Central and South America, and now import from South America into Mexico an increasing percentage of the products they sell. They are also diversifying their routes and have gone global; they now even traffic their wares to Europe. At the same time, Mexican drug-trafficking organizations also have increased their distribution operations inside the United States to expand their profits even further. As these Mexican organizations continue to spread beyond the border areas, their profits and power will extend even further — and they will bring their culture of violence to new areas.

Burned in PhoenixThe spillover of violence from Mexico began some time ago in border towns like Laredo and El Paso in Texas, where merchants and wealthy families face extortion and kidnapping threats from Mexican gangs, and where drug dealers who refuse to pay “taxes” to Mexican cartel bosses are gunned down. But now, the threat posed by Mexican criminals is beginning to spread north from the U.S.-Mexican border. One location that has felt this expanding threat most acutely is Phoenix, some 185 miles north of the border. Some sensational cases have highlighted the increased threat in Phoenix, such as a June 2008 armed assault in which a group of heavily armed cartel gunmen dressed like a Phoenix Police Department tactical team fired more than 100 rounds into a residence during the targeted killing of a Jamaican drug dealer who had double-crossed a Mexican cartel. We have also observed cartel-related violence in places like Dallas and Austin, Texas. But Phoenix has been the hardest hit.

Narcotics smuggling and drug-related assassinations are not the only thing the Mexican criminals have brought to Phoenix. Other criminal gangs have been heavily involved in human smuggling, arms smuggling, money laundering and other crimes. Due to the confluence of these Mexican criminal gangs, Phoenix has now become the kidnapping-for-ransom capital of the United States. According to a Phoenix Police Department source, the department received 368 kidnapping reports last year. As we discussed last week, kidnapping is a highly underreported crime in places such as Mexico, making it very difficult to measure accurately. Based upon experience with kidnapping statistics in other parts of the world — specifically Latin America — it would not be unreasonable to assume that there were at least as many unreported kidnappings in Phoenix as there are reported kidnappings.

At present, the kidnapping environment in the United States is very different from that of Mexico, Guatemala or Colombia. In those countries, kidnapping runs rampant and has become a well-developed industry with a substantial established infrastructure. Police corruption and incompetence ensures that kidnappers are rarely caught or successfully prosecuted.

A variety of motives can lie behind kidnappings. In the United States, crime statistics demonstrate that motives such as sexual exploitation, custody disputes and short-term kidnapping for robbery have far surpassed the number of reported kidnappings conducted for ransom. In places like Mexico, kidnapping for ransom is much more common.

The FBI handles kidnapping investigations in the United States. It has developed highly sophisticated teams of agents and resources to devote to investigating this type of crime. Local police departments are also far more proficient and professional in the United States than in Mexico. Because of the advanced capabilities of law enforcement in the United States, the overwhelming majority of criminals involved in kidnapping-for-ransom cases reported to police — between 95 percent and 98 percent — are caught and convicted. There are also stiff federal penalties for kidnapping. Because of this, kidnapping for ransom has become a relatively rare crime in the United States.

Most kidnapping for ransom that does happen in the United States occurs within immigrant communities. In these cases, the perpetrators and victims belong to the same immigrant group (e.g., Chinese Triad gangs kidnapping the families of Chinese businesspeople, or Haitian criminals kidnapping Haitian immigrants) — which is what is happening in Phoenix. The vast majority of the 368 known kidnapping victims in Phoenix are Mexican and Central American immigrants who are being victimized by Mexican or Mexican-American criminals.

The problem in Phoenix involves two main types of kidnapping. One is the abduction of drug dealers or their children, the other is the abduction of illegal aliens.

Drug-related kidnappings often are not strict kidnappings for ransom per se. Instead, they are intended to force the drug dealer to repay a debt to the drug trafficking organization that ordered the kidnapping.

Nondrug-related kidnappings are very different from traditional kidnappings in Mexico or the United States, in which a high-value target is abducted and held for a large ransom. Instead, some of the gangs operating in Phoenix are basing their business model on volume, and are willing to hold a large number of victims for a much smaller individual pay out. Reports have emerged of kidnapping gangs in Phoenix carjacking entire vans full of illegal immigrants away from the coyote smuggling them into the United States. The kidnappers then transport the illegal immigrants to a safe house, where they are held captive in squalid conditions — and often tortured or sexually assaulted with a family member listening in on the phone — to coerce the victims’ family members in the United States or Mexico to pay the ransom for their release. There are also reports of the gangs picking up vehicles full of victims at day labor sites and then transporting them to the kidnapping safe house rather than to the purported work site.

Drug-related kidnappings are less frequent than the nondrug-related abduction of illegal immigrants, but in both types of abductions, the victims are not likely to seek police assistance due to their immigration status or their involvement in illegal activity. This strongly suggests the kidnapping problem greatly exceeds the number of cases reported to police.

Implications for the United StatesThe kidnapping gangs in Phoenix that target illegal immigrants have found their chosen crime to be lucrative and relatively risk-free. If the flow of illegal immigrants had continued at high levels, there is very little doubt the kidnappers’ operations would have continued as they have for the past few years. The current economic downturn, however, means the flow of illegal immigrants has begun to slow — and by some accounts has even begun to reverse. (Reports suggest many Mexicans are returning home after being unable to find jobs in the United States.)

This reduction in the pool of targets means that we might be fast approaching a point where these groups, which have become accustomed to kidnapping as a source of easy money — and their primary source of income — might be forced to change their method of operating to make a living. While some might pursue other types of criminal activity, some might well decide to diversify their pool of victims. Watching for this shift in targeting is of critical importance. Were some of these gangs to begin targeting U.S. citizens rather than just criminals or illegal immigrants, a tremendous panic would ensue, along with demands to catch the perpetrators.

Such a shift would bring a huge amount of law enforcement pressure onto the kidnapping gangs, to include the FBI. While the FBI is fairly hard-pressed for resources given its heavy counterterrorism, foreign counterintelligence and white-collar crime caseload, it almost certainly would be able to reassign the resources needed to respond to such kidnappings in the face of publicity and a public outcry. Such a law enforcement effort could neutralize these gangs fairly quickly, but probably not quickly enough to prevent any victims from being abducted or harmed.

Since criminal groups are not comprised of fools alone, at least some of these groups will realize that targeting soccer moms will bring an avalanche of law enforcement attention upon them. Therefore, it is very likely that if kidnapping targets become harder to find in Phoenix — or if the law enforcement environment becomes too hostile due to the growing realization of this problem — then the groups may shift geography rather than targeting criteria. In such a scenario, professional kidnapping gangs from Phoenix might migrate to other locations with large communities of Latin American illegal immigrants to victimize. Some of these locations could be relatively close to the Mexican border like Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, San Diego or Los Angeles, though they could also include locations farther inland like Chicago, Atlanta, New York, or even the communities around meat and poultry packing plants in the Midwest and mid-Atlantic states. Such a migration of ethnic criminals would not be unprecedented: Chinese Triad groups from New York for some time have traveled elsewhere on the East Coast, like Atlanta, to engage in extortion and kidnapping against Chinese businessmen there.

The issue of Mexican drug-traffic organizations kidnapping in the United States merits careful attention, especially since criminal gangs in other areas of the country could start imitating the tactics of the Phoenix gangs.

You have a simple and unsophisticated view of the Supreme Court's ability to just *poof* make a policy.

**You have an incorrect view of the constitutional role of the SCOTUS if you think it is supposed to make policy.**

I didn't say that the SCOTUS "is supposed" to make policy. YOU said "If citizens rights were given to all born on our soil, per U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, then why would a member of an Indian tribe born within the national boundaries after that date need the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924?". As in, the Supreme Court and NOT the Constitution gives this right. I've said the entire time that the right is found in the Constitution.

My intent is to read the Constitution. It is interesting that I am the one reading the Constitution literally, and somehow I am being treasonous. I guess I just thought the Constitution should mean what it says.

What do you make of GM's posts yesterday concerning the legislative history of the Amendment in question? They seemed quite strong to me.

Guro (and GM), No need to say that they "seem strong." They are strong. Good finds. However, I stick to what I have said thus far, and here is why.

There are many different, legitimate, ways to intepret the Constitution. Some of the most common include attempting to discern the original intent (as GM has done) and literalism (as I have done). I prefer the later for one major reason, and that it the difficulty to discern the original intent of "the framers" whether directed at the original document or the amendments that followed for the following reasons (not necessarily exhaustive):

1. Who are the framers of the original document? Do we include all of the people in Independence Hall? Just the ones who actually wrote the document? Do we include the ones who came to the convention and left? What about the members of Congress at the time who only called a convention to alter the Articles of Confederation?2. Relatedly... do we include the states' ratification conventions and debates? There are damn lot of people who play a major role in the inception of the Constitution and the amendments. Is it reasonable to look to all of the reasons why all of these people voted to ratify? And, what is to be made of any dissent at these conventions? Not only will every person likely vote yes to ratify, all of those members persent who voted no likely have something add.3. Relatedly... in some cases, amendments were added over time. In the most extreme example, the 27th and most recent example of amendment was ratified nearly 200 years after it was proposed. (It has an interesting history... check it out.) 4. Most importantly, it is very easy to mislead the original intent. For example, the Congressional Record has all of the floor debate held on the chambers' floor. However, members of Congress can add to the Record information that was not presented on the floor... or even add material as though it was part of the original debate.

Also, I would like to remind GM that debate and dissent is what brought us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to begin with. Debate can be constructive, if it is allowed to be. There is nothing un-American about what I do, my intention, my words, or my interpretation of the Constitution.

"There are many different, legitimate, ways to intepret the Constitution. Some of the most common include attempting to discern the original intent (as GM has done) and literalism (as I have done)."

Another "intent" would be of not just founding fathers which ever group we decide on is that group but of those who came up with the 14th amendment.Please forgive if this is out of place in the context of the ongoing discussion here (since I am not an attorney) but I think this could be included here.

***Original intent of the 14th AmendmentThe 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Supreme Court decisionsThe correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

For more information, see:1. P.A. Madison, Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies, The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans (February 1, 2005)

2. Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq., Illegal Aliens and American Medicine The Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 10 Number 1 (Spring 2005)

9. Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty - Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims (September 29, 2005)

11. Charles Wood, Losing Control of the Nation's Future -- Part Two -- Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens, The Social Contract (Winter, 2005) - includes discussion of the related Wong Kim Ark court case

Though I likely lean in an originalist direction, I'm interested in the literal camp. Word meanings change over time. For instance, understanding of term "militia" has certainly changed over the last 250 years. How does one tie a literal meaning to an evolving term? What criteria is used? Is literalism an "evolving constitution" subset or does it embrace concrete and lasting standards? Do literalists use penumbras and emanations to attach add water and stir elements to the constitution?

BD, you further the conversation with your distinction of methods of interpretation. If I may paraphrase, we have the strict/plain meaning of the words of the Constitution (or a statute) and we have legislative intent as discerned from the legislative history. Although you describe well the limitations and challenges in discerning legislative intent, ultimately I am not persuaded by your argument. As is the case with any legislation we simply do our best to discern the intent of those making the law. A committee report gets more weight than an isolated congressman flapping his gums. James Madison gets more weight than some back bencher at a State convention. Given the role of the two Senators cited by GM, it seems to by that be standard legal analysis, their words, particularly in the absence of words/writing to contrary meaning, should be given considerable weight.

Lets keep giving it away like dopes. anything for a darn vote! Hey it ain't their money.I don't want our country to be feared but I would like to be respected. Not dumped on and abused.I don't think Republicans are afraid/unwilling to confront illegals because they provide cheap labor. I think they are afraid of offending Latino *voters* Rove said republicans go after illegals and we lose Latino voters for generations. However I think this country has crossed a threshold wherein a majority want the illegal invasion CRISES stopped now - yesterday! The tipping or boiling-over point, so to speak, is the dismal economy. People are not only thinking how we are being abused by foreigners invading our country but are *feeling the pain* of laying down their taxes, life savings, for anchor baby benefits, like medicaid, food stamps, education property taxes, health care and more. For God's sake with all the unempolyment why can't the real American born high school drop out/grad/college grad mow my lawn?

Thanks to their international “human rights” advocates, Gitmo detainees receive art therapy, movie nights and video games at their U.S. taxpayer-funded camp in Cuba. Now, the left’s bleeding heart lobby wants to provide similar taxpayer-sponsored perks to illegal alien detainees on American soil. Welcome to the open-borders Club Fed.

According to an internal Department of Homeland Security e-mail obtained by the Houston Chronicle, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency plans a radical overhaul of the immigration detention system. No, the reforms will not increase the nation’s measly, chronically underfunded detention bed capacity — fewer than 35,000 beds last fiscal year to cover an estimated illegal alien population of between 12 million and 20 million. The Obama ICE leadership is headed in the exact opposite direction.

ICE chief John Morton — the same man who signaled last month that he may refuse to process illegal aliens sent to him by Arizona law enforcement officials — has already eliminated 50 detention facilities. This despite a DHS inspector general report released last spring exposing the federal government’s bipartisan failure to expand detention space capacity to end the dangerous game of illegal alien “catch and release.”

Instead, among the p.c. makeover measures under consideration or about to be made by Obama’s ICE agency in the next 30 days:

Ensuring humane treatment of detainees is one thing. This, on the other hand, is beyond ridiculous. Detention centers should be clean, safe and temporary way stations for illegal immigrants on their way out the door. These proposals turn the immigration detention centers into permanent Dave & Buster’s-style comfort zones for illegal aliens biding their time until the next amnesty. Dancing lessons? Game halls? This is an invitation for abuse — and a recipe for exploitation by smugglers and drug cartels. Open-borders and civil liberties activists will end up endangering DHS/ICE workers — and the rest of us — under the guise of “immigrant human rights.”

The left-wing campaign by the American Civil Liberties Union, change.org and illegal alien activists targeting our detention system began in earnest after 9/11. Under the Bush administration, hundreds of illegal aliens of Arab descent were detained and questioned as “material witnesses” in counterterrorism probes. The use of immigration laws in the war against Islamic jihadists became a rallying point for the open-borders propagandists.

The New York Times hysterically reported that most of these post-9/11 detainees were held for months without charges. In fact, 60 percent of the 762 immigrants detained after the 9/11 attacks were charged within 72 hours. And the Justice Department inspector general found that there were legitimate reasons for delay in the remaining cases, including logistical disruptions in New York City after 9/11, such as electrical outages, office shutdowns and mail service cancellation that slowed delivery of charging documents. Immigrant abuse charges were hurled recklessly by the likes of Al Gore, who slandered DHS’s detention program during a paid appearance in Saudi Arabia — despite the DOJ’s failure to find any such patterns.

The truth got lost along the way. So did common sense. Allowing illegal alien terror suspects to roam free in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks would have been a dereliction of duty. And countless homeland security experts and DHS inspector general reports have repeatedly spotlighted lax enforcement in the detention safety net over the past decade.

Hundreds of thousands of “absconders” remain on the loose because of failure (or refusal) to detain them. The immigration lawyers’ racket has lobbied for compassionate “alternatives” to detention that routinely result in deportation fugitives simply ditching the process and disappearing.

Their goal is not to improve detention. Their goal is to sabotage it — all while law-breakers munch on croissants and joyfully shout “BINGO!”***

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Based upon these comments, there is no difference between illegal aliens and legal aliens. Even for a "legal alien" their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Michelle Malkin herself was born to alien parents having allegiance to their native country. Even the person taking a "vacation" in HI and while they are there delivers a baby; presuming they are on a typical "legal" tourist three month visa, they too are "legal aliens".

Now that is a can of worms. My point is that it is complicated. Easier/better to say; "All persons born to a citizen or naturalized in the United States..."

However, the 14th Amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States",It really is quite clear; whether we like it or not.

To waste time on legal challenges or even discussions seems futile; better if you truly believe it should be changed to spend time, money, and energy to amend the Constitution. I would support that change.

Though I likely lean in an originalist direction, I'm interested in the literal camp. Word meanings change over time. For instance, understanding of term "militia" has certainly changed over the last 250 years. How does one tie a literal meaning to an evolving term? What criteria is used? Is literalism an "evolving constitution" subset or does it embrace concrete and lasting standards? Do literalists use penumbras and emanations to attach add water and stir elements to the constitution?

Depends on which kind of literalist, I suppose. Given your example, and the example given within the link, I can tell you that I am strong supporter of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment. I should note, futher, however, that one need not be a liberal to believe in penumbras.

Thanks for the sources; good stuff therein. Doesn't look like your constitutional philosophy will inspire me to run shrieking from the room.

Appears a lot of what's been occurring in this thread is a pragmatist v. originalist, or perhaps more correctly in view of the 14th's pedigree, historical literalist perspectives. The pragmatists here are focussed on the costs associated with a literal interpretation of the 14th; is there anything in the literal perspective that would help them grapple with this?

A confession: I ran kitchens for about two decades and so am very torn where the subject of illegal immigration is concerned. Some of the best, hardest working, exemplars of the American bootstrap ethic were, in my experience, folks who snuck across the border, as were some of the folks who I strongly felt should be taken out back and shot. Been sitting much of this debate out as I'm having a hard time reconciling my experience with current haphazard enforcement of immigration law and am repelled by the political gamesmanship occurring. But that don't mean I'm not intrigued by the possibility of getting into a nuts and bolts discussion of how our constitutional framework and perspectives can inform us as we sort these issues out.

"so am very torn where the subject of illegal immigration is concerned. Some of the best, hardest working, exemplars of the American bootstrap ethic were...."

Now you sound like a bleeding heart liberal. I know you mean well. Yes all of us work alongside illegals. They are all over the country - I think there may even be more then 20 million at this point. And yes they work hard. They HAVE to. But they also abuse our system and our laws. And because we are saps we lose more than we gain.

And unfortunately that is why this country is weak, and that is why it is failing IMO.

Again, I feel we need to establish respect for our country around the world. Not fear, but not the impression we are afraid to stand up for ourselves. And we need to proud. But we also need for our people to stop this entitlement binge. We need to work for it. Lest the rest of the world run over us like they are slowly working towards. Now I get off my soapbox.

Illegals - go home. Your welcome here after you get in line. Not before. EOM.

"Also, I would like to remind GM that debate and dissent is what brought us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to begin with. Debate can be constructive, if it is allowed to be. There is nothing un-American about what I do, my intention, my words, or my interpretation of the Constitution. "

The American Revolution, and as a result the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not come about as the result of a dispassionate intellectual exercise. They decided to fight against the global superpower of that time for a long list of grievances, including "The State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within".

There are real, tangible losses to the American people, a corrosion of the rule of law and in the long term, an existential threat to the future of this nation as result of illegal aliens and the growth of a population within our borders who hold a legal status of citizen, but a loyalty to other nations.

I'll remind you that the role of intent holds a great degree of importance in the American legal system. Identical acts with differing intent can mean the difference between facing the death penalty or misdemeanor penalties.

One can play semantic games and attempt to build a box that cannot be escaped by the American people, and you can try to wrap yourself in the constitution as you do this, but your avoid examing the intent of the founders because one need not have an encyclopedic knowledge of their writings to know that they would not tolerate the destructive interpretation of the constitution you advocate.

I'm sure it was my "taken out back and shot" comment that gave me away.

Fact of the matter is that, in lieu of a sensible guest worker program and despite a gaping inexpensive labor need, US policy has created a climate where there is little impediment to filling a vast need and then we're somehow surprised when the free market functions to bring labor and capital together. My guess is it would take a lot less effort to create a straightforward guest worker program than it does to keep the current dysfunctional hodgepodge stumbling forward.

Good point, GM. Every time I get panhandled I offer to take the panhandler to the nearest restaurant and get him signed on as a dishwasher. For some odd reason I've never been taken up on it. We do a pretty good job of producing layabouts currently.

For some reason, a true rarity, I agree with each and everyone one of BBG's quotes.

"I ran kitchens for about two decades and so am very torn where the subject of illegal immigration is concerned. Some of the best, hardest working, exemplars of the American bootstrap ethic were, in my experience, folks who snuck across the border, as were some of the folks who I strongly felt should be taken out back and shot.

Fact of the matter is that, in lieu of a sensible guest worker program and despite a gaping inexpensive labor need, US policy has created a climate where there is little impediment to filling a vast need and then we're somehow surprised when the free market functions to bring labor and capital together. My guess is it would take a lot less effort to create a straightforward guest worker program than it does to keep the current dysfunctional hodgepodge stumbling forward."

I also agree with, "Every time I get panhandled I offer to take the panhandler to the nearest restaurant and get him signed on as a dishwasher. For some odd reason I've never been taken up on it. We do a pretty good job of producing layabouts currently." On this point however I notice here in LA at least, in spite of the heavy Latin (legal or illegal) population, I rarely see a Latino panhandling. Rather, there is Home Depot near my home where 50+ (Latino) line up for work. My brother has a landscape gardening business and occasionally he will hire some. I asked him why he doesn't hire white, or black or Asian. He gave me a quizzical look and said they "don't work as hard".

Going back to BBG's point, in some of the best restaurants in LA (expensive) the dishwashers are Latino AND often, the sous chef is Latino too. They work very hard; they learn, and they contribute. Illegal or not, I don't know, however if they are good, somehow the owner manages to "sponsor them" so that they can obtain a Green Card. In a way, isn't that the "American Way"? And we ALL benefit.

Conceptually, I agree with GM, "Cutting our destructive welfare state will go a long way to filling those low wage jobs with Americans.", but then I am not so sure...Will they do these jobs? Same quality? Effort? Somehow, as BBG points out, "the free market functions to bring labor and capital together"

Further I also agree with BBG "reconciling my experience with current haphazard enforcement of immigration law and am repelled by the political gamesmanship occurring" Something is wrong there...

I am not ignoring CCP's point about healthcare; something needs to be done. I just don't know the answer.